Article

Narrative Tools forGames: Focalization,Granularity, and theMode of Narrationin Games

Jonne Arjoranta1

AbstractThis article looks at three narratological concepts—focalization, granularity, and themode of narration—and explores how these concepts apply to games. It is shownhow these concepts can be used as tools for creating meaning-effects, which areunderstood here as cognitive responses from the player. Focalization is shown tohave a hybrid form in games. This article also explores the different types of nar-rators and granularities in games, and how these three concepts can be used tocreate meaning-effects. This is done by discussing examples from several games, forexample, Assassin’s Creed III, Skyrim, Fallout: New Vegas, and Civilization.

Keywordsfocalization, granularity, narrative, meaning-effect, mode of narration, perspective

Introduction

Video games have advanced with great strides since their inception. Things like gra-

phical fidelity and the level of simulation achievable in modern games are both awe

1 University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland

Corresponding Author:

Jonne Arjoranta, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Email: jonne.arjoranta@jyu.fi

Games and Culture2017, Vol. 12(7-8) 696-717

ª The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1555412015596271

journals.sagepub.com/home/gac

inspiring and evolving fast enough to make yesterday’s games appear dated. Yet, the

area where games with multimillion dollar budgets still seem to struggle the most

appears to be the story. Telling good stories is not easy. Telling them in games seems

to be even harder. Hopefully, a better understanding of games and the stories in them

will make that task easier. This article provides tools of narratological theory for that

task and shows how these tools can be applied to games.

The term ‘‘video game’’ is here used as a general descriptor for games played on

typically digital platforms like game consoles or personal computers. There are sig-

nificant differences between platforms that are not considered here, but which may

affect the way games are experienced. This is especially true with the rise of new

types of play (e.g., casual and asynchronous) and new platforms (e.g., the smart

phone). Discussing these differences would be outside the scope of this article. For

the same reason, this article will not discuss nondigital games, even if the differences

would arguably be even greater than between different digital platforms. Although

this article focuses on video games, it is not argued that these meaning-effects are

limited to digital games. On the contrary, similar meaning-effects could be achieved

in analog games.

Aarseth (2003) underlines the importance of the game scholar’s personal experi-

ence of playing games. I have played most of the games discussed here but not all of

them. As Aarseth (2003) suggests, more emphasis is given to the examples I am

more familiar with.

Game Narratology

To understand games using narratological concepts, one has to take special care in

applying them. The narratological concepts used here were not created with games

in mind, and instead of games, narratological research has mostly been conducted

on other media. However, using narratological theory to understand games has a

long, if contested, tradition in the short history of game studies (e.g., Frasca,

2003; Simons, 2006).

The analysis in this article borrows heavily from the literary strand of narratolo-

gical theory. This foregrounds games as forms of storytelling, as opposed to discuss-

ing them as drama (Ryan, 2002). Other approaches building on, for example,

cinema, theater, or role-play could also be used but would require a different analy-

tical framework. This article uses the concepts of focalization, granularity, mode of

narration, and meaning-effects, all borrowed from literary studies.

Some researchers have expressed a worry of game studies being ‘‘colonized’’ by

other fields with their own interests, issues, and framings, and thereby translating

games into terms that are ill equipped to handle them (e.g., Aarseth, 1997, 2001).

However, it has been pointed out that although classical narratological concepts are

not perhaps applicable to games as such, this does not delimit narratology to the

world outside games. The application just needs to be aware of the differences

Arjoranta 697

between games and other media and perhaps the limitations those differences cause

(Aarseth, 2012; Calleja, 2013; Pearce, 2005; Ryan, 2002, 2013; Tavinor, 2009).

One example is the difference between scripted narratives and emergent or

interactive narratives, as described by Tavinor (2009). Ryan (2002, p. 594) follows

a similar line of thought when she emphasizes how some media are better suited

for some narratives than others: ‘‘there are plot types and character types that are

best for the novel, others are best for oral storytelling, and yet others are best for

the stage or the cinema. The question, then, is to decide which types of stories are

suitable for digital media.’’ When discussing game narratives, it is also important

to acknowledge the limits that player freedom sets to narration. It may be that nar-

rative is in a more or less permanent contradiction with play (Sicart, 2011) or inter-

activity (Ryan, 2002).

One distinction that may help understand this analysis is the difference between

content and expression (Montfort, 2007). While this is not the only way to make this

distinction (cf. Genette, 1980), it is useful enough for the purposes of this article.

Following this distinction, this article is more interested in expression than content:

how things are expressed, rather than what is being expressed. The focus is on meth-

ods that could be used to express all kinds of things, and the examples highlight

specific illustrations of this.

There are many strands of narrativity in narratology, with some approaches liken-

ing all human meaning making to a form of narration (e.g., Flanagan, 1992). Even

highly abstract games can be analyzed with narratological tools, like analyzing

Space Invaders (Taito Corporation, 1978) as a narrative about aliens (in either sense

of the word) or Tetris (Pajitnov, 1984) as a portrayal of the ‘‘overtasked lives of

Americans in the 1990s’’ (Murray, 1997, p. 144). However, the value of such anal-

yses is far from self-evident. The tools presented subsequently could be used to ana-

lyze either one of the previous examples but that would probably only be useful as a

scholarly exercise.

This article evokes Ryan (2002, p. 583) in noting that narrative ‘‘is a mental rep-

resentation that can be evoked by many media’’ and that ‘‘narrativity is a matter of

degree.’’ The analysis here tries to focus on games with a clearer narrative content,

even if the clarity is often just a matter of degree. Games combining narrative con-

tent with gameplay are here called ludonarrative games (cf. Aarseth, 2012).

The current analysis tries to steer away from other senses of narrativity, like the

retroactive attribution of a story to a sequence of events or the reporting of game

events to other people (cf. Herman, 1997). However, a thorough examination of

what narrativity and narratives in games are is outside the scope of this article.

Although the focus is on the semiotics of the tools discussed, any concept of narra-

tivity that is compatible with the following conception of narrativity should be com-

patible with the tools presented in this article:

1. Narratives can exist in any medium but vary in realization.

2. Narrativity exists in degrees.

698 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

3. Games can be combined with stories in different ways. Different combina-

tions lead to different meanings.

4. Not all that happens in a game is narrative, but most events have a narrative

aspect to them.

This is obviously not meant to be a complete explanation of game narrativity but

provides a framework within which meaning-effects can be understood. For a more

comprehensive account of games and narratives, see, for example, Aarseth (2012),

Calleja (2013), Frasca (2003), and Ryan (2002).

Meaning-Effects

This article shows how focalization, mode of narration, and granularity can be used

to create meaning-effects in video games. Varying the use of these tools produces

different meanings in literature and should therefore do so also in video games.

However, it is not claimed that these meaning-effects are stable or that they can

be said to produce consistently the same meaning-effects regardless of context

(Bundgaard, 2013). Rather, these meaning-effects are highly context dependent.

A meaning-effect is defined by Bundgaard (2010, p. 5) as ‘‘a cognitive response

to a textual stimulus.’’ Meaning-effects ‘‘cover the whole spectrum going from

purely emotional responses to highly elaborate interpretations’’ (Bundgaard, 2010,

p. 5). Here, a meaning-effect is not limited to a textual stimulus, but understood ana-

logously as something that is caused by a stimulus from a video game. This stimulus

may be, for example, textual or something like spoken language or haptic feedback

from a controller.

Understanding meaning as a cognitive response grounds meaning firmly in the

cognitive processes of the player. Players are here understood as a more or less uni-

form group, with relatively similar cognitive processes. However, limiting the mean-

ing in games to cognitive processes of a single isolated person does not do the

concept justice (Mayra, 2007). Instead, these cognitive processes should be seen

as happening in a complex context of (social) relations, ultimately making meaning

a contextual and social concept. The approach taken here leaves out all consideration

for cultural differences, but assumes that such differences would exist.

Studying how games can be used to create the meaning wanted by a designer,

how they create meaning despite the intentions of the designer, and how players create

meaning from the games they play is a large and complex set of questions, which is why

the focus is here limited to the more limited sense of meaning-effect. Meaning-effects

are one way meaning is created in relation to games but not the only way.

Tools for Meaning Making

Video games differ from literature in several aspects, for example, by being multi-

modal. The approach taken in this article does not deal with the ontology of

Arjoranta 699

games—trying to map out all the possible values of the variables discussed here—

but rather the focus is on the semiotics of these tools. The concepts discussed are

focalization, mode of narration, and granularity. These three concepts are discussed

together because they all pertain to the perspective and the way of telling the player/

reader what it is that they are seeing and how. They all concern the perspective of

telling: the way the narrative is told, and the point of view the narrative is told from.

Understanding how to vary the perspective enables designers to make the stories

they tell more effective in conveying the meanings they want to convey. This does

not mean that they are the only significant narratological tools useful for understand-

ing games. Development of other narratological tools is left for future research.

In addition to showing how these concepts apply to video games, they are

extended to cover cases that are not found in literature but are present in games. The

central differences requiring this extension are player agency, interactivity, and mul-

timodality (Arjoranta, 2011). These concepts are discussed in order to give game

scholars a more comprehensive vocabulary for studying how games create and con-

tain stories. Hopefully, these three concepts shed some light on how specific types of

meaning-effects are created in games. Designers can use these tools to convey the

things they want to convey in a consistent and effective manner.

Of course, the designer is not the sole authority on the meaning of a game. Both

the player’s interpretation and the context of play do shape the meaning. The final

result is necessarily a combination of authorial intent and player agency (Bizzocchi

& Tanenbaum, 2012). What designers can do is to aim for the best possible repre-

sentation of their intent.1

Focalization

Focalization is the point of view things are seen from (Bundgaard, 2010; cf. Ciccor-

icco, 2012; see also Evans & Green, 2006, p.196). This can be the point of view of a

character present in the story, those of several characters, or even outside any sen-

tient being, a point in space. Any of these can include evaluations, judgments, or

feelings. In the case of a point-in-space perspective, the evaluations can be those

of a narrator.

Genette (1988) calls this perspective. He classifies perspective into three cate-

gories: zero focalization, external focalization, and internal focalization (Elverdam

& Aarseth, 2007; cf. Ryan, 2002). With zero focalization, Genette means that the

story is not focalized into a character but is told from outside any of them. The dif-

ference between external and internal focalization is whether there is access to the

characters’ thoughts and emotions. External focalization gives a behavioristic view

on the characters, while internal focalization grants access to their mental land-

scapes. These can be mixed in a single narrative, and all three can be present. This

full scale of perspectives can be found in video games.

Nitsche (2005) uses a similar approach, basing his analysis on Mieke Bal’s (1997)

application of Genette’s terminology to visual perspectives. Nitsche makes an

700 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

important distinction between focalization and narrating voice. No strong narrating

voice may be present in a game, but the perspective can still be clear and distinct. A

full review of all possible perspectives in games would be beyond the scope of this

article. Some selected examples are discussed instead.

Games that are focused on the strategic level tend to have zero focalization. An

example would be the real-time strategy game Command & Conquer (Westwood

Studios, 1995), where the game is portrayed from a free-floating isometric view.

It can freely shift around the map, paying attention to areas chosen by the player.

Because of technical limitations, the point of view was limited to movement in two

dimensions, with the third dimension and the ability to zoom only added to later

games in the same genre.

The literal point of view of the camera angle should not be confused with the nar-

rative perspective, even though they often coincide. An abstract game may have very

little narrative content, in which case varying the perspective does not make the

game suddenly narrative, but in cases where the game has narrative content, choices

of perspective have narrative consequences.

A game may have a strategic level of abstraction and still utilize forms of foca-

lization other than zero focalization. Dawn of War II (Relic Entertainment, 2009) is a

strategy game that continues the same genre as Command & Conquer but focalizes

the single player game through a central protagonist. However, when playing other

modes (e.g., multiplayer), there is zero focalization.

Real-time strategy games use a ludic mechanics related to the point of view. It is

commonplace for the view of the player to be limited to a small area. This limitation

is described with a term borrowed from military theory, ‘‘fog of war.’’ The fog of

war works in two similar manners. First, only the area that the player’s units are able

to see is revealed to them. To learn about the surrounding terrain, it is necessary to

explore the game map. Second, when no units can see a certain area, changes in that

area are not shown to the player and that area is shown as partially hidden. Enemy

movement, new buildings, and other changes become evident only when the player

sends units to scout the area (see Figure 1).

This means that while the literal point of view might be a bird’s-eye view of the

map, the perspective at least partially blends with that of the commanded troops.

Only information available to them is available to the commander. This might be

explained in diegetic terms with communications technology or magic or seen as

an extradiegetic game mechanics.2

External focalization is typical to video games: the story is told from the perspec-

tive of a central protagonist, but from a behaviorist point of view, without access to

the character’s consciousness. A player may control the actions of the protagonist

without having access to their mental landscape.

This is where games differ from literature. The player’s perspective may be

inside the body of a character (i.e., first-person perspective), up to and including

having control of all of their actions, without having any access to their mental

perspective.

Arjoranta 701

An early example of this is the text adventure game Zork (Personal Software,

1977). The game is seen from the perspective of ‘‘you,’’ but this you lacks any dis-

tinct qualities (see Figure 2). This featureless you is used also in other text adventure

games (Karhulahti, 2012).

A later example of external focalization would be Half-Life (Valve Corporation,

1998). In Half-Life, the player controls the actions of Dr. Gordon Freeman. Because

Freeman stays completely silent during the game, his implied agency is based solely

on his actions. But the actions are almost completely controlled by the player, even

during the scripted sequences where the player’s own agency is limited.

This first-person external focalization is usually done for a specific meaning-

making effect: the player is supposed to identify with the tabula rasa-like character

(the anonymous you) through viewing the actions of that character as their own.

Whether this is successful depends heavily on other factors like the coherence of the

character’s actions when the player is not controlling them, the actions of other char-

acters within the story line, and their reactions to the player’s character. It is not

Figure 1. Fog of war in Freeciv (The Freeciv project, 1996). The two different shades of fog ofwar show two different types visibility.

702 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

enough to consider the player’s character in a vacuum, even if they are portrayed as a

blank slate but as a reactive part of the game world.

It can be argued that video games can make use of the character-internal perspec-

tive to achieve a perspective not available in literature. This perspective is embodied

in the physical perspective of the character being played but does not allow access to

their mental landscape in the manner of internal focalization. In other words, the

player has control over a character’s actions while not having access to the charac-

ter’s mental landscape. This can be used, for example, to deceive the player (cf.

unreliable narration subsequently).

An example of this is Assassin’s Creed III (Ubisoft Montreal, 2012). The Assas-

sin’s Creed series uses a metanarrative in which the player controls a protagonist

called Desmond in the games’ near-future present and Desmond’s different ances-

tors in their historical environments. A machine called Animus lets Desmond relive

the lives of his ancestors. Desmond is part of an organization known as the Assas-

sins, who fight against their eternal enemies, the Templars. Different games have

different ancestors fighting for the Assassins’ cause.3

Assassin’s Creed III uses the player’s expectations against them, by starting the

game off with a Templar protagonist, Haytham Kenway. In a clever narrative trick,

the player is made to play through missions that are essentially identical to the ones

carried out as an Assassin in previous games. The two factions are shown to be func-

tionally identical in their methods and pursuits. In the narrative, Haytham’s alle-

giance is neatly sidestepped: ‘‘Who should I say you are?’’ a character asks him.

‘‘You don’t. They’ll know,’’ Haytham answers. He is aware that he is working for

the Templars, but the player is not. Haytham does not need to state aloud something

Figure 2. The opening of Zork (Personal Software, 1977).

Arjoranta 703

that is obvious to him. It is only after few hours of play that the game reveals Hay-

tham’s allegiance: he initiates another character into the Templar order and at the

end of the ceremony states, ‘‘You are a Templar.’’

Interestingly, the game’s user interface is complicit in this deceit. When Hay-

tham is escorted by Templar allies in disguise, they are marked with a symbol

over their head to make sure the player knows which ones are allies and which

ones are enemies. However, the symbol over their head is not the symbol of the

Templars but that of the Assassins. This might be narratively explained in the

game with the fact that at least part of the game’s interface is part of the Ani-

mus, visible both to the player and Desmond. The assassin symbol might be

there for Desmond’s sake.

Assassin’s Creed III is an example of the perspective described above, since it lets

the player pursue all kinds of goals as Haytham but has them unknowingly help the

Templars. If the player had access to Haytham’s knowledge, they would learn about

his allegiance, since it is his central driving force and defining characteristic.

Instead, every strike the player strikes for the Assassins’ cause while playing Hay-

tham is actually a strike against them.

Some games use external focalization but place a filter of character emotion or

experience on what the player sees or hears (Nitsche, 2005). The perspective is

external to the character played, but the character’s emotions and experiences still

color the player experience.4 This is used for great effect in Max Payne (Remedy

Entertainment, 2001) and Dead Space 3 (Visceral Games, 2013).

In Max Payne, the player plays through Payne’s dream sequences. The first one is

a labyrinth of identical hallways that seem to lead nowhere. The screen is murky and

ominous, with the lighting reflecting Payne’s experience of the situation. Eventually,

the screen is tinted red as Payne approaches the bloody finale of the sequence. The

camera stays external but is very much affected by Payne’s experiences.

Dead Space 3 has a cooperative play mode, where two players control the char-

acters Isaac Clarke and John Carver. Both are controlled from the external perspec-

tive, but the players are still occasionally shown different things when the

characters’ experiences of the game world differ. This is significantly impacted

by Carver’s mental instability, forcing the player controlling him to play through

episodes of dementia.

Internal focalization can be achieved in games with measures similar to those in

literature. Presenting internal dialogue or describing a character’s experiences can be

done in different modalities in games. A direct analog to literature would be a writ-

ten description of the character’s emotions embedded within the game, but the same

effect can also be achieved with spoken internal dialogue.

Video games may also describe a character’s internal state by suddenly removing

player control and having the character act regardless of the player’s wishes, perhaps

in a harmful or destructive manner, a technique not available in literature. This sud-

den removal of control limits the player’s agency (Tanenbaum & Tanenbaum, 2009)

and can be used to highlight the player’s helplessness in the situation. Sicart’s (2009)

704 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

analysis of Bioshock (2K Boston, 2007) shows how this can be used to create ethical

meaning-effects.

Some games move the focalization from inside the character’s viewpoint to out-

side it when the character dies or goes unconscious. This disassociates the perspec-

tive from the character and signals that the player has lost control of the character’s

actions. An example of this is The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda Game Studios,

2011). It is possible to play Skyrim from a third-person perspective, with the player

character visible on the screen, but the camera defaults to a first-person perspective.

However, when the player character dies, the camera moves away from behind the

character’s eyes and shows the character’s dead body (see Figure 3).

Another example of this change in perspective is usually known as the ‘‘kill

cam.’’ It is used in multiplayer modes of first-person shooters, like, for example,

in Call of Duty: World at War (Treyarch, 2008). A kill cam uses the same disasso-

ciated perspective discussed above, showing you the death of your character from an

outside perspective. But it places the perspective so that it follows your killer, show-

ing you the moments before your character’s death and the actions that lead to it.

This can be even more disassociating than simply witnessing the death of your char-

acter from outside, because in this case, the perspective is placed in the eyes of your

character’s killer. In this example, the mode of focalization stays the same, but the

focalizer changes.

There seems to be a possible meaning-effect related to this. The technique shows

how the controlled character is essentially interchangeable with other characters in

the game. The actions of your killer are similar or identical to the ones you were

Figure 3. The mighty Dragonborn, dead from falling down a cliff in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim(Bethesda Game Studios, 2011).

Arjoranta 705

undertaking trying to kill them. They happened to be faster, more accurate, or better

positioned than you and managed to kill you before you killed them, but it could

have been the other way round. You might even infer some hints as to what would

have changed the situation from seeing the world from your killer’s eyes for a few

seconds. While the feeling of embodiment may be strong when controlling a char-

acter in a first-person shooter, the last minute change of perspective reminds you that

the character is one of many, discarded as soon as it becomes unusable.

Both Mass Effect 2 (BioWare, 2010) and Tomb Raider (Crystal Dynamics, 2013)

use an opposite technique in their introduction. Both games are played from an

external perspective, with the player character portrayed on the screen. But both

games show parts of the introductory cinematic from an internal perspective, with

the camera situated where the character’s eyes would be. Again, it is an exception

to the way most of the game is portrayed, and perhaps an attempt to make the player

identify with the perspective of the character (soon to be) played.

These two contrary examples show how changing the focalization can be used

to create meaning-effects: to create a distancing effect, move the perspective from

an inside perspective to outside the character’s body or to an another body.

Coupled with a loss of control, this can be used to convey helplessness. To create

the opposite effect of identifying with a character, move the perspective inside the

character’s body.

It seems that games have all the same perspectives as literature (zero, external,

and internal focalization) at their disposal and an additional one. This embodied

focalization places the player in control of the actions of a character (or several char-

acters) and places the physical perspective inside the body of the character but does

not grant access to that character’s mental landscape. This is usually because that

character is created as a blank slate for the player to identify with and to fill out

as the game progresses.

Mode of Narration

Stanzel (1981) makes a central distinction in modes of narration by dividing narrat-

ing characters to teller characters and reflector characters. These can be equated with

Genette’s (1988) narrator and focalizer, respectively. The distinction between teller

characters and reflector characters does not necessarily follow the division to first-

and third-person narrators. First-person narrators that do not verbalize their thoughts

are not teller characters, if they do not communicate with the reader but only talk to

themselves (Stanzel, 1981).

The teller character is a narrator, somebody who conveys or reports the story, and

communicates with the reader in this manner. They are more or less conscious of the

fact that they are conveying a story to somebody and may comment, anticipate, or

otherwise make sure that the reader can follow what is being told. They may also

be unreliable by telling things that are not true in the narrative world or misdirect

the reader in some other manner.

706 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

An example of a game with an unreliable narrator is Call of Juarez: Gunslinger

(Techland, 2013). The game is narrated by the protagonist gunslinger, and the

events of the game consist of his narration and the speculations of his listeners.

This means that the facts of the game fiction change whenever the narration is

questioned (e.g., Indians turn into bandits in the middle of a fight), or the narrator

corrects someone else speculating on the events (e.g., a duel already won never

happened; see Figure 4).

Dragon Age 2 (BioWare, 2011) uses a similar technique. At the beginning of the

game, the player character appears very powerful, killing groups of enemies with

ease. This is because the beginning is narrated by an exaggerating narrator, later

coerced to remain closer to the truth. This change in narration is reflected on two

levels: in the game’s rules and visual depiction. The rules are changed, so that the

main character loses access to powers that were available in the beginning and does

less damage to the enemies. The visual depiction also becomes less hyperbolic. This

is even reflected in the breast size of a female character, with the breasts portrayed

significantly larger in the introduction than later on in the game.

In comparison, a reflector character is not a narrator and is not responsible for

conveying the tale. Instead, they experience it. The reader is presented with a

description of the character’s experiences as they experience them. This also means

that they cannot properly be considered deceitful, with the exception of self-deceit

(Stanzel, 1978). A reflector character can be confused or misled or they may refuse

to accept the truth, but they do not deceive the reader intentionally.

It is also important to make a distinction regarding what Stanzel (1978) calls the

person. He divides a person into the categories of identity and nonidentity. This has

Figure 4. Winning a duel that never happened in Call of Juarez: Gunslinger (Techland, 2013).

Arjoranta 707

to do with the worlds of the narrator and the fiction, which can be either identical

(homodiegetic) or separate (heterodiegetic), depending on whether the narrator inha-

bits the world they narrate (Genette, 1980).

Video games make use of both teller characters and reflector characters. Both

types of characters can also be used in several modalities. The modality in games

most similar to literature is the written text, which is present in most games. It can

be present as written dialogue, which may or may not be also voice-acted and vice

versa. This is common enough to be a feature of almost any game with discernible

characters, and even of many games with no characters. For example, in Eufloria

(May, Kremers, & Grainger, 2009), the narrating mother tree is the only character

with a distinct personality, but it is only present in the game through textual

narration.

Written text may also be present in the form of journals or similar texts that pro-

vide direct access to either a character’s thoughts or story events. It is common espe-

cially in role-playing games to have an in-game journal that catalogues both the past

events and the future goals of the player character (e.g., Skyrim [Bethesda Game Stu-

dios, 2011]). A journal can be diegetic (internal to the game world), extradiegetic

(external to the game world) or combine aspects of both, for example, by chronicling

the events of the story and providing instructions for the player.

Narration in games can also be done using a voice, for example, with a voice-

over. This form of explicit narration can be used either by teller characters or reflec-

tor characters, depending on whether the character is simply verbalizing their

thoughts for themselves or for the benefit of the player.5 Alan Wake (Remedy Enter-

tainment, 2010) has both textual and verbal narration. The textual narration is

encountered in the game as loose pages of a book that the player may pick up. The

voice-over is performed by Alan Wake, the game’s teller character.

It is also possible to break what is seemingly logical or possible within the game

world and produce different kinds of impossible narrators. This is often done in lit-

erature and cinema, for example, with narrators that survive their own deaths and

continue narrating the story. This can create surprise or amazement in readers/view-

ers witnessing this impossibility.

It is not necessary for the narrating character to be the protagonist, or even a char-

acter the player plays. Bastion (Supergiant Games, 2011) features a seemingly

omniscient teller character that follows the actions of the protagonist from an outside

point of view, but who is nevertheless a character within the fictional world.6 Bas-

tion is also a good example when discussing something Tavinor (2009) points out:

the events that happen in a video game are at least partially chosen by the player, and

in that sense might not be chosen for their narrative function. The actions players do

in games may instead serve a tactical or playful purpose.

This is highlighted in Bastion, when the narrator starts commenting on the play-

er’s repeated actions, like destroying the scenery. Destroying scenery instead of pro-

ceeding in the game’s story serves less and less narrative purpose. Bastion shows

that the role of the narrator might not be limited to conveying the narrative. While

708 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

the narrator is important in relaying the story of the game, it also spends large por-

tions of the game describing seemingly inconsequential events. This serves as a

reminder of the arguments Sicart (2011) and Ryan (2002) present on the contradic-

tion of play, interactivity and narrativity.

It seems that video games can use both teller characters and reflector characters in

ways similar to literature. Teller characters and reflector characters can use text, but

games also offer other means to convey their meanings. A common way of doing

this is by using spoken language. Additionally, a teller character could, for example,

break the fourth wall by pointing at things, gesturing, or making faces at the player.

This would imply that they acknowledge the presence of someone witnessing the

events taking place, even if the fictive world is incapable of perceiving them.

Because games generally require some kind of input from the player to proceed, it

follows that games as systems are built with the assumption that there is a person

witnessing the events of the game. If there is not, the game either does not continue,

waiting for the player to do something, or it will end very quickly, often with the

demise of the player character. This could be used for different kinds of meaning-

effects by varying the amount the characters are aware of and interact with the

player.

Granularity

According to Bundgaard (2010, p. 26), ‘‘[g]ranularity and density capture the fine-

ness/coarseness of a description and its richness with respect to elements mentioned

within it.’’ There is a natural level of granularity in literary description that corre-

sponds to how perception works (Bundgaard, 2013). There is a basic phenomenolo-

gical level on which humans are aware of their surroundings even when they are not

paying special attention to anything. By using this level of description, narration cre-

ates the impression that the described events correspond to the level of detail of

human perceptual experience.

Fictional worlds in both literary works and games are incomplete in the sense that

they never specify everything about the world (Juul, 2005). Another way of saying

this is to call fiction indeterminate, since they are never defined in perfect detail and

could correspond with many different states of being: there is no determinate way to

interpret fiction (Ingarden, Frizer, Chipp, 1970). Juul (2005) also argues that some

games have what he calls incoherent worlds, where the rules and fiction of the game

clash. His example is Donkey Kong (Nintendo, 1981) in which Mario has three lives

for no apparent fictional reason.

By relying on expectations regarding how perception works, narration can omit

many things and still remain coherent. For example, a text does not need to explicitly

mention that people are clothed, because that is the assumption of most readers. A

lengthy literary work could omit all descriptions of clothing without the readers

assuming that the characters are naked.

Arjoranta 709

Only deviations from the assumption of the basic level of description need to be

specified (Walton, 1990). In most contexts, being clothed hardly requires a mention.

Being clothed is the assumed standard because it reflects our everyday experiences

of people and their tendency to wear clothes. Ryan (1980) argues that interpreting

fiction, we use the principle of minimal departure to make sense of the world.

The principle states that we interpret fiction as being the closest equivalent to the

reality we know. Different contexts create different expectations: we cannot assume

equivalence as freely when discussing works of fantasy or science fiction.

Deviations from the norm can also be used to create meaning-effects. Sudden

changes in specificity can, for example, focus the reader’s or player’s attention to

some particular detail or object. This might signal focused attention from the char-

acter narrating the events. Constant focused attention or attention to things that feels

unnatural to the reader or player can create a feeling of alienation and possibly

reflect a distorted view of the world.

Games contain different types of granularity. It is possible to differentiate

between, for example, visual granularity and granularity of textual description,

sound and simulation. These types of granularity need not reflect the same level

of detail but can differ from each other by design.

Both visual granularity and granularity of simulation are issues that are associated

with the discussion of realism in games. Visual realism is often seen as an ideal to

aim for in games, something that increasing computing power is providing to a

degree higher than ever before. This emphasis on visual veracity reflects the dis-

courses on virtual reality or cyberspace, where the central purpose of technology

is to create a space where reality and representation become inseparable (e.g., Feath-

erstone & Burrows, 1995). These discourses seem to imply that as granularity

increases, mediation decreases (Ryan, 1999).

It is typical that a game portrays a level of visual granularity throughout or

changes between a few. Good examples are the normal view and the strategic map

of Civilization V (Firaxis Games, 2010). The first gives more fine-grained informa-

tion about the game world, portraying things in more detail, with the latter switching

to more iconic representations of the objects in the game world. In theory, the game

would be playable with just the icons, as they contain all the necessary information

for playing the game. This would lessen the visual granularity of the game and

remove things like character animations that are not necessary for playing the game

but add to the feel of it.

Usually, the levels of granularity stay constant throughout the game, and different

levels serve different purposes, like commanding troops within a sector or seeing the

overall situation of a war in a strategic war game with two levels.

Games differ greatly in what they choose to simulate, if they simulate anything at

all (entirely abstract games may not be simulations of anything else). This choice is

usually associated with the genre and theme of the game. What would be of major

importance in one game is insignificant or even banal in another. For example, Sim-

City 4 (Maxis, 2003) features simulations of waste management, but most games do

710 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

not. Simulating waste management is interesting only in the context of city manage-

ment, even if a simulation that aspired for realism would need to include it. The

choice of granularity focuses attention on specific elements of the game, highlight-

ing waste management as something necessary in understanding how cities work,

but as an unimportant concern in most games.

An illustrative comparison can be made between Civilization IV (Firaxis Games,

2005) and Civilization V. While pollution is simulated in Civilization IV, it is absent

from Civilization V. While the two games still simulate the same thing (empires),

players of Civilization V are free from environmental concerns. It would be tempting

to read a political statement into this. However, the game was simplified in many

aspects between its fourth and fifth instances. A likely explanation is that pollution

was one of the many systems that were deemed unnecessarily complex and removed

for that reason.

Another example can be found by looking at how games simulate the workings of

the human body. Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas (Obsidian Entertainment, 2010)

simulate how the human body handles nutrition and rest in a similar manner, but

with small differences.

In Skyrim, the player character will receive stamina points, health points, or both

from eating and drinking different foods and drinks. The character will also heal

from sleeping and may receive a bonus to experience gain for sleeping in a bed

owned by the character. This is beneficial for surviving in the game, but not neces-

sary for completing it.

A player could, for example, choose to have their character in Skyrim eat nothing

during the game. While this would destroy the believability of the game as a simula-

tion, it would not have any effect on the game on the level of game mechanics,

except by making the game more difficult. In addition, the benefit gained from food

and drink is relatively minor when compared to healing and stamina potions. This

makes the incentive to spend time gathering and consuming food and drink small

in comparison to potions.

To understand the world of Skyrim, we would need to assume that it differs from

our own in how nutrition works and depart from Ryan’s (1980) principle of minimal

departure. Another way of reading the situation would be to assume that the world’s

fiction is incoherent in Juul’s (2005) terms. The second reading would make sense,

considering that most of the world’s inhabitants are involved with farming, even if it

is both ineffectual and unnecessary. It could be argued that the game world has dif-

ferent rules for the protagonist than for the rest of the population in order to accom-

modate the needs of playability.

If the player chooses the optional hardcore mode in Fallout: New Vegas, the

player character must eat, drink, and sleep. With this option enabled, it is necessary

to pay attention to the basic human needs of the character in order to complete the

game. Eating, drinking, and sleeping are no longer things that make the game easier,

but become something that is necessary to keep the player character alive and well.

Thematically appropriately Fallout: New Vegas also simulates radiation. Exposure

Arjoranta 711

to radiation has harmful effects on the player character’s body that will slowly harm

and eventually kill them.

The granularity of simulation in Fallout: New Vegas is more detailed than in

Skyrim when it comes to simulating human bodily functions. This change in spe-

cificity gives rise to different experiences of the game world: in Skyrim, the player

character may suddenly die from damage, but unless a tough monster or a misstep

from a high cliff kills them, they will continue to get stronger, eventually becoming

powerful enough to overcome any obstacle. Walking around the game world is an

adventure, and the game encourages bold exploration: even if the player encoun-

ters something too dangerous to challenge, they have the option of running away

and returning when their character is more experienced, better equipped, and more

powerful.

In contrast, exploration in Fallout: New Vegas is a more perilous activity. In addi-

tion to bandits and monsters, the player must be aware of the character’s need for

sustenance and of the harmful effects of radiation. Exploration can still be profitable

(and often is), yielding better equipment or wealth, but has an added layer of danger:

venture too far and too boldly, and you might not make it back. Running out of anti-

radiation medicine, food, and water while too far away from the nearest town can

lead to a death that is only reversible by returning to an earlier save game. Gaining

better equipment does not help if you die in the radioactive wasteland.

This contrast between Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas shows a meaning-effect

that is achieved by altering the level of granulation in simulation. By simulating

human needs, Fallout: New Vegas places more emphasis on survival than Skyrim.

Of course, a cautious approach to save games make either game less likely to lead

to a dead end, lessening the effect in Fallout: New Vegas.

Here, developers of Fallout: New Vegas could have used similar game mechanics

than the makers of XCOM: Enemy Unknown (Firaxis Games, 2012). XCOM has a

game mode called Ironman, where the player is prevented from keeping more than

one saved game. All choices in the game are final, and the player simply has to

accept any failures. This gives all choices weight that is lacking from the games

which accept repeated cycles of saving and loading.

Both Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas have one thing in common in their simula-

tion of the human body: both use the abstract measure of hit points to simulate char-

acter health. Regardless of what other simulation systems these games use for

measuring health, loss of hit points is the most common cause of a character’s death.

In both games, characters can go through truckloads of food and drink in a matter of

minutes in order to get more hit points. This causes no ill effect on their stomach or

digestive system—things not simulated in the game.

The examples discussing SimCity 4 and the two Civilization games and compar-

ing Skyrim to Fallout: New Vegas are just some of the ways different granularities of

simulation can lead to the player experiencing the game differently. Even small dif-

ferences in simulation can lead to large differences in experience, as is the case with

Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas.

712 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

Conclusions

This article has not tried to build a comprehensive overview of how the tools it

describes are used, but has focused on presenting differences and possibilities in

using them. Therefore, the results are eclectic rather than exhaustive, focusing on

showing theoretical possibilities in understanding certain ways of expressing things

with games.

The examples used in this article draw from existing games, showing that the

techniques described here are already in use. What is lacking is a comprehensive

understanding how to use these techniques, a recognized language that enables

designers to choose the best tool for the task, and academics to identify when one

is used. With this goal in mind, Table 1 summarizes some of the findings of this arti-

cle, hoping that further research complements these results.

As can be seen from the table, many of the tools mentioned concern identification

or association. This may either mean that these are common tools, easily used by

designers. However, it may also mean that they are easy to identify and I have failed

to notice other options. I invite others to extend the examples I have given to fix any

possible oversights.

Table 1. Meaning Making Tools Summarized.

Tool Meaning-Effect Games

Fog of war Uncertainty of the surroundings andidentification with controlledcharacters

Dawn of War II,Command & Conquer,and Freeciv

Tabula rasa Identification with played character Zork and Half-Life

Hidden motives Reevaluation of earlier actions Assassin’s Creed III

Emotional filter Identification with characterperspective and access to characteremotions from an external perspective

Max Payne and DeadSpace 3

Removal of control andchange to an externalperspective

Helplessness and disassociation Bioshock and Skyrim

Change to your killer’sperspective

Disassociation Call of Duty: World atWar

Change to internalperspective

Identification with played character Mass Effect 2 and TombRaider

Unreliable narration Doubt about the narrated events Call of Juarez and DragonAge 2

Narration of interactiveelements

Highlighting meaningful actions Bastion

Selective simulation Highlighting important systems andde-emphasizing other aspects

SimCity 4, Civilization IV& 5, Skyrim, and Fallout:New Vegas

Arjoranta 713

One possible reading on why many of the tools concern identification is that

games need these tools in order to reach the level of identification more easily pro-

vided by the expressive techniques of literature: internal dialogue, access to charac-

ter motivations, well-rounded characterizations, and so on. This reading could be

used to argue that games use these techniques not because they are easy, but because

they are necessary. Not all games try to convey narratives, but the ones that do need

to employ tools that suit the task games have traditionally struggled with, combining

interactive entertainment with high-quality storytelling.

Another possible reading would be that the tools are actually playing on games’

strengths. Games that combine narrative content with interactive gameplay are in the

unique position of giving the player characters to look at, explore the world through,

and play with. In some sense, this relation is more intimate than in literature, with

player action and character action blending into a whole where it can be hard to tell

one apart from the other. However, it is exactly here that new possibilities emerge:

like the examples of Bioshock and Assassin’s Creed III show, there is room for new

tools where games develop their own expressive language that can convey meanings

not easily communicated through other media.

Designers can hopefully look at these techniques and see the possibilities they

offer, but also notice what has not been done. Focalizations still tend to follow one

character, narration usually stays safely within four walls, and hit points are an

enduring abstraction. Experimental literature breaks conventions with admirable

reliability. One hopes games would have even more room for play.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article: This article has been funded by the Academy of Finland and

is a part of the research project Ludification and the Emergence of Playful Culture (276012).

Notes

1. For practical approaches designers use to aspire for a commonly shared vision, see, for

example, Hagen (2010).

2. This study uses the term ‘‘diegesis’’ in order to clarify some aspects of the discussion.

However, the term is not unproblematic when applied to games (see, e.g., Jørgensen,

2013, pp. 65–67).

3. Assassin’s Creed III is actually the fifth game in the main series. The second game in the

series received two sequels. Additionally, there were already three games for handheld

consoles and few more for mobile devices.

4. This can be likened to the literary concept of free indirect discourse.

714 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

5. Of course, all narration is ultimately for the benefit of the player, but analytically this dis-

tinction can still be made.

6. When the protagonist first finds the narrator, he comments, ‘‘He finds me. We talk for a

spell.’’

References

Aarseth, E. (2001). Computer game studies, year one. Game Studies, 1. Retrieved from http://

www.gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html

Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis. In Digital

arts and culture conference (Vol. 16). Melbourne.

Aarseth, E. (2012). A narrative theory of games. In Proceedings of the international confer-

ence on the foundations of digital games—FDG ‘12G ‘12 (p. 129). New York, NY: ACM

Press. doi:10.1145/2282338.2282365

Aarseth, E. J. (1997). Cybertext. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.

Arjoranta, J. (2011). Do we need real-time hermeneutics? Structures of meaning in games.

Proceedings from DiGRA 2011: Think Design Play. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht

School of the Arts.Retrieved September 14–17, 2011, from http://www.digra.org/wp-con-

tent/uploads/digital-library/11310.17396.pdf

Bal, M. (1997). Narratology. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Bizzocchi, J., & Tanenbaum, J. (2012). Mass effect 2: A case study in the design of game nar-

rative. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 32, 393–404. doi:10.1177/

0270467612463796

Bundgaard, P. F. (2010). Means of meaning making in literary art: focalization, mode of nar-

ration, and granularity. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics,

42. Special Issue: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague Vol. XXXIV

Linguistics and Poetics.

Bundgaard, P. F. (2013). Roman ingarden’s theory of reader experience: A critical assess-

ment. Semiotica, 2013, 171–188.

Calleja, G. (2013). Narrative involvement in digital games. Conference proceedings from

Foundations of Digital Games. May 14–17, 2013. Chania, Crete, Greece.

Ciccoricco, D. (2012). Focalization and digital fiction. Narrative, 20, 255–276. doi:10.1353/

nar.2012.0021

Elverdam, C., & Aarseth, E. (2007). Game classification and game design: Construction

through critical analysis. Games and Culture, 2, 3–22. doi:10.1177/1555412006286892

Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction (p. 851). Edinburgh,

Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Featherstone, M., & Burrows, R. (Eds.). (1995). Cyberspace/cyberbodies/cyberpunk: Cultures

of technological embodiment. London, England: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446250198

Flanagan, O. J. (1992). Consciousness reconsidered (p. 193). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Frasca, G. (2003). Ludologists love stories, too: notes from a debate that never took

place. Proceedings of DiGRA 2003. Utrecht University and Digital Games Research

Association (DiGRA), the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/

05163.01125

Arjoranta 715

Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

Genette, G. (1988). Narrative discourse revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hagen, U. (2010). Designing for player experience: How professional game developers com-

municate design visions. In DiGRA Nordic 2010: Experiencing Games: Games, Play, and

Players. Stockholm, Sweden: University of Stockholm.

Herman, D. (1997). Scripts, sequences, and stories: Elements of a postclassical narratology.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 112, 1046–1059. Retrieved from http://www.

jstor.org/stable/463482

Ingarden, R., Fizer, J., & Chipp, H. B. (1970). Letters pro and con. The Journal of Aesthetics

and Art Criticism, 28, 541–543. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/428495

Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds (p. 254).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jørgensen, K. (2013). Gameworld interfaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Karhulahti, V.-M. (2012). Feelies: The lost art of immersing the narrative. In DiGRA Nordic

2012 Conference: Local and Global—Games in Culture and Society (pp. 1–9). Tampere,

Finland.

Mayra, F. (2007). The contextual game experience: On the socio-cultural contexts for mean-

ing in digital play. In Situated play, DiGRA 2007 (pp. 810–814). Tokyo, Japan: Digital

Games Research Association.

Montfort, N. (2007). Generating narrative variation in interactive fiction. Philadelphia, PA:

University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/3271851.pdf

Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New

York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Nitsche, M. (2005). Focalization in 3D video games. In Digital Proceedings of Future Play,

Lansing, MI, October 13–15, 2005..

Pearce, C. (2005). Towards a game theory of game. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.),

First person: New media as story, performance, and game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ryan, M.-L. (1980). Fiction, non-factuals, and the principle of minimal departure. Poetics, 9,

403–422. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90030-3

Ryan, M.-L. (1999). Immersion vs. interactivity: Virtual reality and literary theory.

SubStance, 28, 110–137.

Ryan, M.-L. (2002). Beyond myth and metaphor: Narrative in digital media. Poetics Today,

23, 581–609. doi:10.1215/03335372-23-4-581

Ryan, M.-L. (2013). Transmedial storytelling and transfictionality. Poetics Today, 34,

361–388. doi:10.1215/03335372-2325250

Sicart, M. (2009). The ethics of computer games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sicart, M. (2011). Against procedurality. Game Studies, 11. Retrieved from http://gamestu-

dies.org/1103/articles/sicart_ap

Simons, J. (2006). Narrative, games, and theory. Game Studies, 7. Retrieved from http://

gamestudies.org/0701/articles/simons

Stanzel, F. (1978). ‘Narrative situations in the novel’: Towards a ‘grammar of fiction’.

NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, 11, 247–264.

716 Games and Culture 12(7-8)

Stanzel, F. (1981). Teller-characters and reflector-characters in narrative theory. Poetics

Today, 2, 5–15.

Tanenbaum, K., & Tanenbaum, J. (2009, December). Commitment to meaning: A reframing

of agency in games. In Digital arts and culture conference: After media—embodiment and

context (pp. 12–15). Irvine, CA: University of California.

Tavinor, G. (2009). The art of videogames. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Game References

Anderson, T., Blank, M., Daniels, B., & Lebling, D. (1977). Personal software. Zork.

Bethesda Game Studios. (2011). The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Bethesda, MD: Bethesda

Softworks.

BioWare. (2010). Mass Effect 2. Redwood City, CA: Electronic Arts.

BioWare. (2011). Dragon Age II. Redwood City, CA: Electronic Arts.

Crystal Dynamics. (2013). Tomb Raider. Tokyo, Japan: Square Enix.

Firaxis Games. (2005). Civilization IV. Novato, CA: 2K Games.

Firaxis Games. (2010). Civilization V. Novato, CA: 2K Games.

Firaxis Games. (2012). XCOM: Enemy Unknown. Novato, CA: 2K Games.

2K Boston. (2007). BioShock. 2K Games: United States.

May, A., Kremers, R., & Grainger, B. (2009). Eufloria. Bellevue, WA: Valve Corporation.

Maxis. (2003). SimCity 4. Redwood City, CA: Electronic Arts.

Nintendo. (1981). Donkey Kong. Nintendo: Japan.

Obsidian Entertainment. (2010). Fallout: New Vegas. Bethesda, MD: Bethesda Softworks.

Pajitnov, Alexey. (1984). Tetris.

Relic Entertainment. (2009). Dawn of War II. Agoura Hills, CA: THQ.

Remedy Entertainment. (2001). Max Payne. Garland, TX: 3D Realms.

Remedy Entertainment. (2010). Alan Wake. Washington, DC: Microsoft Game Studios.

Supergiant Games. (2011). Bastion. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros, Interactive Entertainment.

Taito Corporation. (1978). Space Invaders. Tokyo, Japan: Taito.

Techland. (2013). Call of Juarez: Gunslinger. Montreuil, France: Ubisoft.

The Freeciv Project. (1996). Freeciv. The Freeciv Project.

Treyarch. (2008). Call of Duty: World at War. Santa Monica, CA: Activision.

Ubisoft Montreal. (2012). Assassin’s Creed III. Montreuil, France: Ubisoft.

Valve Corporation. (1998). Half-Life. Simi Valley, CA: Sierra Entertainment.

Visceral Games. (2013). Dead Space 3. Redwood City, CA: Electronic Arts.

Westwood Studios. (1995). Command & Conquer. London, England: Virgin Interactive.

Author Biography

Jonne Arjoranta, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.

His main research interests are playful politics and the structures of meaning found in games.

Arjoranta 717